Dr. David Criste: Good job, Senate

Incredibly, the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate, led by Harry Reid, rejected any new anti-gun legislation. It apparently recognized that more laws that only place a burden on the law-abiding do not decrease violence.

We reduced the death toll from drunken driving by enacting stiff penalties and by vigorous enforcement of the law. We didn’t ban cars, recognizing that the inanimate objects are not the cause of the crime.

Unfortunately, the Democrat-controlled Legislature here in Colorado could not (or would not) make that leap. They could have used their majority to increase mental health funding, for instance, but chose instead to burden the law-abiding with new laws.

Comments

Clever to use an analogy of banning cars, because, of course the Senate bill would not have banned any guns, but just required checks when buying guns. And so mentioning cars is clever because cars require government registration not only when purchasing, but every year as well as proof of insurance and a a state issued driver's license which is far more than was proposed for guns.

An eloquent analogy mocking the ridiculous of not having gun registration and gun licenses when, in fact, the Senate bill would not have done either. The Senate bill would have merely required checking a database of prohibited owners when making a sale.

The tip off that it had to be satire was the first line saying Democratic controlled Senate failed to pass the bill since the bill received a majority of votes, but not enough to overcome the Republican filibuster.

Scott,
Whose talking points are you using as you are unfortunately sadly misinformed. There was no senate filibuster.
"A word, first, about that Senate "minority." Majority Leader Harry Reid was free to bring the deal struck by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey to the floor for an up-or-down vote, and this background-checks amendment might have passed. It did convince 54 Senators, including four Republicans. But under Senate rules, a simple majority vote would have opened the measure to up to 30 hours of debate, which would have meant inspecting the details. The White House demanded, and Mr. Reid agreed, that Congress should try to pass the amendment without such a debate."
The Dems choice on how they presented the bill required 60 votes. Why would the White House "demand" they try to pass the bill with out debate. Personally, I would have preferred they had debated the bill.
All the best,
Dan

Scott,
For a smart guy, you really need to get yourself educated on this issue and I am not talking about throwing around statistics. I would start with getting a copy of the 50 states and federal firearms laws published by the ATF. Go to a beach somewhere because it will take a lot of time reading, then digesting, what these laws state. If we could rely on law enforcement, but especially the judicial system, I can cofidently say gun crime would not be the issue. Enforcement starts at the very top with the Attny Generals office and we have seen how that is working out for us . . . . .Holder has stated that he does not have the resources or ability to prosecute the gun laws we already have. For example, of the 72,000 background check denials in 2010 the Feds prosecuted 22 cases. Keep in mind that it is a felony to lie on the 4473 Federal background check form, for starters.

It was the fear of 30 hours of Senate debate that requires a bill to get 60 votes. A number of Republican senators had promised to filibuster the bill so if it couldn't get 60 votes on a preliminary vote then there weren't the votes to stop the threatened filibuster.

Cindy,

There are tons of pages of laws on vehicles and driving. Appears to be far more than there is for guns.

As you pointed out in previous posts, there are many gun buyers that didn't know they were going to fail the background check due to outstanding warrants and so on. They are only going to prosecute cases they think they are confident they are going to get a conviction. Perjury is a tough one to prosecute because it is not just being wrong, but having to prove the person was intentionally lying.

The gun control reaction to the latest crisis is another attempt by the left to grab the empathy card and impress the knee jerkers for the nest election If they had their way every gun would be consficated.

For anyone following the takedown of the marathon bombers with any degree of objectivity there is a reasonable conclusion to be drawn: 7 and 15 round clips are insufficient, which is why law enforcement carried more. Over 200 rounds were exchanged during the firefight from which the survivor successfully escaped.

On the other hand, we could default to the Representative DeGette stupidity: if the bad guys ever break in you'll be dead anyway so you don't need a gun.

Of course, one could draw the exact opposite conclusion from the marathon bomber.

Sure, the police may want to have large magazines. The police also have stun grenades and other armament that is not for public ownership.

The marathon bombers suggest why the public should not have large magazines because large magazines give criminals more firepower and the ability to hold off law enforcement. And so a terrorist seeking large magazines could then be arrested during the planning phase of an attack.

The Waterton boat owner did not need more than 15 rounds to defend himself against the bomber's attempt to get in his house and attack him. So that situation did not demonstrate the need for public ownership of large magazines.

Please provide any documentation of any civilian that fired more than 10 shots in defense against the bomber.

See, we agree that large magazines were not needed by the public to protect themselves from the bombers. Go ahead and argue that some people would have wanted to have guns to stop them, but no civilian with a gun would have been any better off with 30 vs 10 rounds.

Scott,
I have made so such statement that you attributed to me and I have made no such argument regards magazine size, shots fired by civilian etc.
I have asked you for proof of a statement you made. Very simple request.
Here is your statement from previous post.
"The Waterton boat owner did not need more than 15 rounds to defend himself against the bomber's attempt to get in his house and attack him".
Again please provide a link to the site that tells us how the bomber tried to break into the Watertown boat owner's house.
You are welcome to have and espouse any opinion you wish. That is your right.
But I would appreciate it if you at least stick to the facts. If you can prove to me that the bomber did indeed attempt to break into the boat owner's house I will gladly accept that as fact. I have not been able to find any such information but i am just an old simple guy and most likely do not have access to the inside info you have available to you.
So proof please.
All the best,
Dan

It is factually true that the homeowner didn't need any shots to defend himself because the bomber didn't attack him and so zero shots were sufficient. Zero is less than 10 so certainly less than 10 shots was also sufficient.

This did not start off as a semantic game, but as a response that lots of firepower was needed. Well, no firepower was needed by the homeowner. So it makes no sense to argue that civilians having large magazines to defend themselves from people even as bad as the Boston Bombers.

Scott you need to leave your mothers basement once in a while, there is a big world out there. And if I am wrong about the basement you should try to "Question Authority" once in awhile. It really bothers me that so many younger people today take everything this Government says at face value. This is not a swipe at just the Democrats either the Republicans do this as well, but for some reason these Obama supporters will buy just about anything this Teleprompter reading fool will say. The National Defense Authorization Act, and this full blown attack on Internet Freedom which is a full blown assault on the1st Amendment aka SISPA, These Drone Strikes that kill 200 kids just to get 1 so call Terrorist. His attack on States Rights just to name a few. This guy is a bigger Fascist than GW Bush ever dreamed of being. You seem to call your self a Liberal but a true Liberal would not trust this Government on issues of control. Whether it is guns, speech, taxes, etc you go to your Talking Points and spew your BS. I did not like the BUSH Regime even though he got my vote in 2000 but with Gore and his NAFTA BS I had no other choice and was rewarded with the Patriot Act, False Flag attacks 9-11 and the start of this Police State. Obama is like a Turbo Charged Bush/ Chaney White House and the False Flags in Sandy Hook, Aurora and this possible False Flag and Martial Law act in Boston is the act of a Fascist, plus he is a War Criminal just like Dick Cheney,but at least Bush was not that bad on the 2nd Amendment and was a lot smarter than that DeGette ding bat from Denver but that's about it. And the same for you NeoCons out their learn to ??? the McCains Linsey Grahm and other sell outs of freedom. These people are killing Americans just so they can sell more weapons of war and now they want to ban our GUN POWDER. IT IS TIME TO WAKE UP !!!!!! before its too late and we are living in a United Nations controlled hellish Police State that would be like a Hi Tech 1984.

I question authority all the time. People have even said that I am relentlessly critical of local government.

I just don't buy into crazy conspiracy theories that the Boston Bomber's were Obama's agents.

Nor do I buy crazy conspiracies that DHS is going to go to war against US citizens. (Dumbest part of that conspiracy is that massive gap of logic of exactly who is supposed to do it. Obama's liberal militia?!?)

Nor to I accept conspiracy theories that vaccines or treated drinking water is some government conspiracy to track or drug people.

Nor do I accept the crazy theory that government has a secret plot to take people's guns and that a gun registry makes any difference. Did you see the door to door search of Waterton? Think that if government wanted to take people's guns that anyone could anything about it other than being killed? And a government that cannot agree to even check if gun buyers are felons or mentally ill is going to undertake door to door overwhelming force searches?

I know, my views on these issues are not commonly shared on these forums.

Scott that is great that you question our local people in office but it is the Federal Government that is where the real problems lie. And even though you have a 1950's view of life in America. All these wars and proxy wars don't bother you. Don't you feel betrayed by Obama being a bigger War Monger than GW Bush when he sold himself as some kind of Man of Peace. (Those Obama bumper stickers with the peace sign as a O make me sick). And why do we need a DHS and the NSA anyway ?? Our Government is run by a lot of people that profit from war and security. A lot of people have and will profit from all these so called terror attacks that really got goin after Oklahoma City and now Boston will cause Billions to be spent on Camera's to watch us to multi Million $ robots to defuse bombs. DHS and all the war toys that go with it is a Trillion dollar a year waste of money to enrich the Elite. Would you rather see that money spent on Education so kids in the inner cities could attend top private schools like suburban rich kids? What about health care maybe those war bucks could be better spent on that. Scott If we had good people in Government that were not their to enrich themselves I may not question all these Terror attacks either but that is not the case. History has also shown me that people will attack their own people to profit or gain power. Just google Operation Northwoods, The gulf of Tonken that got us into Vietnam. Robert F Kennedy wanted to bomb the US Embassy in Honduras so we could invade that nation, but JFK said no way no go. False Flags do happen its not something that just happens in the Movies

Scott,
So basically you provided false information ie: lied when you said "The Watertown boat owner did not need more than 15 rounds to defend himself against the bomber's attempt to get in his house and attack him". as the bomber never tried to break in to the house.
So why would I ever take any thing you post seriously, not that you would care as you spin like a top with your rants.
From the movie A Knights Tale " You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting."
As I have said before, I am relatively new to Steamboat and just trying to figure things out. I now have a better understanding of you.
Looks like you are an ideologue who will say what ever, even if untrue, to try to support your belief,
Sad, as i thought you might be some one to have reasonable discussions.
I guess it's live and learn.
Dan

Scott
spinning like a top.
Had you said that in your opinion the Watertown boat owner would not have needed more then 15 rounds to defend himself had the bomber attempted to break into the boat owner's house. That would be fine as it is your opinion and you have a right to that.
How ever you said "The Watertown boat owner did not need more than 15 rounds to defend himself against the bomber's attempt to get in his house and attack him". As I have yet to find any link providing info that this is indeed what happened. I would classify it as untrue. We can pick nits all we want but you made a false statement. Own up to it and move on.
It's OK. It happens to the best of us.
All the best.
Dan

hey, at some point you should really have your thyroid levels checked...quite often this component is overlooked when diagnosing certain psychiatric presentations... especially, such as in your case, paranoid psychosis! seriously, get the test done. you shouldn't have to live like this.

So I looked up the California thyroid situation which was based upon an actual scientific paper.

Paper hyped itself by emphasizing a few peak readings which were not typical increased readings, but there were increased readings and increased risk for kids born in the one month peak period. Though, this is normally a rare condition so even greatly increased risk takes number of cases from a few dozen to a few hundred. It affected so few because the period of peak radiation was short.

Thus, it is hardly wiping out a generation of West Coast kids. And it is not too hard to treat so the purpose of the article was to suggest to doctors that this is less rare for a group of kids born in a one month period and so doctors should be more willing to test for it.

The Feinstein/Boxer headline is to acknowledged satire. The Aluminum oxide link is to people that appear to believe it.

I guess its only a matter of time before they ban the old iron skillet, wives use to create mass destruction on the heads of husbands...... citizens , do not be alarmed that object in the sky is called the sun. ya know , just in case you forgot....time for some warmer hula lessons.~;0)
that better brian?....LOL peace.....

Brian On my rare trips to big cities, I have gone in these stores to placate my wife. We have never bought anything because of the ridiculous prices but they often have samples of food. I get all those that I can because I am always hungry.